Teahon denies pressure over Aquatic Centre
Mr Justice Paul Gilligan also heard yesterday that the building contracting firm Rohcon had made a payment of IR£750,000 to Dublin Waterworld Limited (DWL) to attract it into the consortium which secured the contract for construction and operation of the centre in April 2003.
The judge is hearing an application by Campus Stadium Ireland Development Limited (CSID) the State company established in 2000 to secure and pay for the building and operation of the Aquatic Centre for forfeiture of the lease for the NAC from DWL for alleged multiple breaches of the terms of the lease.
DWL is opposing the application.
In direct evidence yesterday, Mr Teahon said he had never given consent to any arrangement under which another company, Dublin Waterworld Management Limited (DWML), (a wholly owned subsidiary of DWL), would manage the centre for Pat Mulcair, a Limerick businessman.
However, he said, John Moriarty of DWL had, without the consent of CSID, put in place an arrangement where DWL would not be the operator of the centre and this was outside the terms of the lease.
In cross-examination, Hugh O'Neill SC, for DWL, said Mr Moriarty would tell the court that, after Mr Moriarty refused to sign a project agreement for the centre in 2002, Mr Teahon had taken Mr Moriarty into a separate room and told him that the Taoiseach was calling and that Mr Teahon was under extreme pressure to have matters sorted.
Mr Teahon, who was then executive chairman of CSID, said he did not recall such an exchange.
There was pressure to have the centre in place for the Special Olympics but no personal pressure was being put on him. He could not see any circumstances where he would have told Mr Moriarty that he, Mr Teahon, would lose his job if the agreement was not signed.
He accepted that building works for the centre had proceeded some nine months before a formal building contract was signed. He said an arrangement was put in place to try and ensure the NAC would be ready for the Special Olympics. He did not agree there was a situation where the project could have gone "off the rails".
Mr O'Neill put to Mr Teahon that there was an inquiry by the Attorney General's office, which was critical of the corporate governance of CSID.
Mr Teahon said the inquiry's report raised issues about the way the parties to the consortium were changed. He had responded to those matters before the Dail Committee on Public Accounts.
He said he had ceased to be chairman of CSID in March 2002 after discussions with the government.
Mr Teahon said CSID had taken legal advice about changes to the consortium which was awarded the NAC contract and was advised that CSID could approve the changes because they were in line with the public tender.
